The American Spectator

Chalkdust| 3.9.11 @ 6:31AM

The SC decision, taken to it's logical conclusion, would include desecration of the dead marines grave. More shame for the shamless.

Albert| 3.9.11 @ 10:18AM

You are absolutely right. If burning a flag is considered "free speech", and these people's rants and interferences at funerals are considered "free speech", then why is it NOT "free speech" to piss on a Marine's grave, video tape it, and put it on "You-Tube"? It is hard to imagine how we as a civilized society could get to this point, but then we have been watching this gradually come into being over the last 40 years.

Mitch Angoop| 3.9.11 @ 2:00PM

I apoligize for this message out of context; but it is very upsetting.

WARNING!
I do not want to be alarmist, but I have been wrestling with the worst virus/worm I have EVER encountered. It apparently got in through a ‘hole’ in an ADOBE FLASH update message. It will come up as a warning that your computer has been infected by a virus and appear to be scanning your hard drive. DO NOT OPEN IT OR EVEN CLICK ON IT! If you do not know what to do, try to get into SAFE MODE and call an expert. Microsoft has issued more than a dozen security definitions and attempted patches in the last week and it keeps getting back in. This is very serious! I may be paranoid, but it looks like it could be a coordinated attack on our internet. I hope I’m wrong.

By the way, this whole decision also appalls me. We are rapidly committing national suicide in the name of the various false gods of decadent liberalism: multiculturalism, diversity, and the rest of the crap oozing from the amoral lefties.

John Fields| 3.9.11 @ 6:44AM

I don't understand how the "free exercise thereof" portion of the Snyder family's first amendment rights don't have any weight. Westboro attempts to deny families with military funerals that portion. how is that protected?

Appleby| 3.9.11 @ 6:52AM

Freedom of political speech must b allowed; however, freedom from consequences of that speech should not be allowed.

In many cases citizens are making sure the Westboro people are neither seen nor heard, by peacefully forming a wall between them and the funerals. This is the way to handle the situation -- if you forbid people to speak, you give that speech more importance than it deserves. Let them be stupid in public and come out and point out their errors. Then people will judge between the ideas and those that dont *deserve* to be heard will not be.

borninsocal| 3.9.11 @ 1:20PM

This isn't about the free exchange of ideas. These people intentionally target people who psychologically vulnerable and attack them verbally knowing it cause great emotional and psychological trauma. That is why Justice Alito is right and you are wrong.

Appleby| 3.9.11 @ 4:32PM

Make that exception and the next group to be "protected" would be Muslims. Are you ready for that?

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 7:57PM

I disagree Appleby: If a group has a permit for a rally or a funeral or a brithday party or whatever, then other influences do not have a right to come in and disrupt the goings on. The right to peaceable assembly requires the state to intervene when others try to dissemble. Free speech has limits, and intruding on funerals should have been one of them.

Texas Army Vet| 3.9.11 @ 4:40PM

@ borninsocal: they don't do it because they know grieving people are "psychologically vulnerable." They choose to protest at funerals - not just military funerals, but also high-profile funerals like those of the victims of the Tucson shootings - because they know this is shocking behavior and it will get them more attention, more publicity. They actually notify the press in advance of the protests to ensure they get the coverage. If the press would just tell them to kick rocks and not show up, the Westboro freak show (I Like that.) would lose its platform from which to spew its filth. However, we all know the press likes a good freak show & that will NEVER happen. Also, there are a lot of passionate people who want to challenge Phelps & his cult. They get into shoving contests with the cult members; the cult members sue – they have lots of highly trained vulture/lawyers – and they win money so they can go out and continue to spew more filth. It’s a vicious cycle and Westboro feeds off it and revels in it. Something more needs to be done and it's a shame the Supreme Court failed in its mission.

CharlieEcho| 3.9.11 @ 6:54AM

Where is the insanity going to end? We can't even respect our dead anymore.

Teaghan| 3.9.11 @ 8:11AM

As distastful as it all is, our free speech needs protection. If this had gone the other way, the next to be silenced would be the Tea Party and anyone who speaks against the first half black president. They did the right thing.

Brother John| 3.9.11 @ 8:50AM

You are exactly right. As much as I detest these worthless people, free speech does not have limits; if it does, that means someone gets to decide what those limits are, and that will never EVER end well.

The proper response, instead, is for state jurisdictions to create circumstances by which they can be charged with other offenses. Intentional harassment at a funeral, for example, could carry with it a lengthy prison term; Prosecutors, likewise, could decline to charge fellow soldiers who took, say, defensive action at a funeral.

This is perfectly logical - it does not take into account the content of their speech, but rather creates conditions in which there will be consequences for their actions nevertheless. They're useless excrement-disturbers, as the Aussies might say, and when you're intentionally harassing specific individuals then there isn't any reason you should feel confident in your own safety. We civilized people will have to become more creative in our disposal of these fools.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 9:41AM

Brother John, those measures are clearly just a backdoor avenue at denying people speech even as you claim that the law should be written or enforced implying otherwise.

This is the thinking the left uses against 2nd amendment rights. Sure, they say, the people have a right to bear arms. They just have to buy their gun at a registered dealer. Oh, wait, there will be no dealer permits handed out for civilians. You can own a legal gun, but no guns will be legal for civilian use. You'll have to register your numbered ammunition, but no such ammo will be available or it will be expensive. Police, on the other hand, will be able to buy whatever cheap ammo they like (or better yet, at taxpayer expense.)

Cuba controls ink which is a backdoor restriction on free speech (not that the regime there requires such a justification.)

The conservative justices saw the slippery slope and avoided it. The left is ready to implement "hate speech" laws in a heartbeat. Examples of hate speech? Speaking up against gay marriage, forcing women into burkas, disagreeing with "affirmative action", disagreeing with feminism, you name it. These are not hypothetical examples. Most have been used as hate crimes in Canada and Western Europe and people fined or jailed for saying such things.

Nunya| 3.9.11 @ 12:37PM

First, free speech as it was written in the Constitution was designed to protect POLITICAL free speech--the right to speak against the government without fear of retribution. The concept of free speech has been bastardized over the years and now comes to protect these idiots screaming their filth at a soldier's funeral? That's just wrong, and borderline evil.

What is needed is a law that allows these idiots to do their protests, but no closer than say, 1500 feet from the funeral, funeral procession, funeral home, or any other potential location the families or friends of the deceased may appear. Any violation of that boundry will result in the immediate arrest of the idiot protestors and a felony charge of disturbing a funeral (or something like it).

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 1:00PM

Nunya, sounds like that "living constitution" is coming to life!

The Constitution says, and I quote, freedom of speech AND religion! In this particular case, both were involved: The church was claiming for religious reasons that the USA was sinful and punishing members of the military. A bizarre political/religious belief to be sure, but certainly within the "design" and wording of the document.

In addition, from the URL I posted, it appears that the protesters were not viewed directly by the family. But let's assume they were: What good is free speech if it has to be constrained? Colleges have shut out Ann Coulter using that claim. She can say anything she likes provided students don't hear her and become offended (including students who have to actually get a ticket to hear her!)

Ironically, most of the threats to free speech have come from the left and not the right except for weird stuff like this. The last case was flag burning. In a way, it's the right's form of political correctness.

Nunya| 3.9.11 @ 2:15PM

There's a significant difference between political debate and satire like Ann Coulter does, and the vicious attack on a family of a slain soldier from a group whose only goal is to get attention.

The fact is, the right to free speech means you have the right to say whatever you want--it DOES NOT mean you have a right to be heard. That's where the line needs to be drawn.

Let these idiots say what they want, the don't have the right to harass others that they don't even know, so that they can get their ugly mugs in front of a camera. The difference between them and Ann Coulter is as vast as East is from West.

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 8:04PM

Also to the point, free speech does not mean the write to do it wherever you want.

Anthony| 3.9.11 @ 8:08PM

Wow, just Wow!! Madam, you are sliding right into the thought process of the left. Because you can't stand these people, rightfully so, nonetheless, as Polish Knight, says, you will now distort the Constitution in order to accomodate your desired outcome.
We used to say it was the left who lived by the axiom, the ends justify the means. You have proven that the left are not the only folks who will distort, pervert, and just plain run over anything that gets in your way of what you don't like.
This is dangerous thinking. As a conservative you should know better. As a conservative you should have more self control.
You want to shut these bastards up, DO SOMETHING about it, don't ask the Court to prostitute itself because you don't like what's happening.

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 11:24PM

Anthony: whom are you addressing?

ricky l. cox| 3.10.11 @ 1:33PM

If you don't think free speech has limits, try it with the secret service.

Try burning a cross on the street right of way in front of a black family's home.

It's not even about speech. Their speech could take place elsewhere. It's about forcing a few grieving people to hear them and see them. It is about a right to inflict pain.

No such right exists. And it doesn't mean speech cannot be protected otherwise. The justices succumed to a completely fallacious argument.

Bill H| 3.9.11 @ 9:24PM

I get tired of this trite pap: "our free speech needs protection." Of course free speech needs protection but does that mean that ALL speech needs protection? Are we completely devoid of the ablity to distinguish between speech that should be protected and speech that should not?

Of course not! We need to stop the silly notion that we are completely devoid of being able to discriminate between worthwhile speech and speech which is devoid of value.

RacerJim| 3.10.11 @ 12:48PM

It's illegal to yell FIRE when there is no fire.
They did the wrong thing.

JDen1952| 3.11.11 @ 12:47AM

No, you are wrong. The Founding Fathers put "Freedom of Speech" in the Constitution to allow the people to criticize the government without fear of retaliation by that government. That's basic Civics 101. The repugnant actions of the WBC was NEVER intended to be "freedom of speech."

figusja| 3.9.11 @ 6:56AM

There must be a line drawn to define common decency and barbaric behaviour. I know people that will kill someone for calling for a survey during dinner. But to attack people during a funeral for publicity? There is a time and place for everything. Discuss your points of view at an appropriate time. They are lucky none of those wackos have been killed. I bet they sure let the cops know where they will be, so they wouldn't get a..holes handed back to them. God Bless America!

Teaghan| 3.9.11 @ 8:13AM

And who will decide what is "decent"? We let pornography run ramant online and it's protected under free speech.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 9:19AM

"Online"- private property....sidewalks - public property. Please make the proper distinction. As a libertarian I see this in very simple terms, what on does say online where one has chosen to offer something to someone and that someone has likewise chosen to view it, that is their right.

In the other case, where what is public property is used in a privileged manner to impose one's views on others, there is no right to such, it's not their property, it is the public's and as such the purposes for which it is to be used are those which benefit the public. This is why there are PUBLIC nuisance laws. One can get as sloshed as they want in their house, but not in public.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 12:13PM

Apples and oranges. Intoxication and other prohibited acts are different than free speech and even then, your analogy easily breaks down. If a parent routinely gets drunk alone in a home with a small child, they can lose custody of the child and face other consequences. In the case of public intoxication, they represent a general threat to the public.

In this case, it was a political idea that represented the threat. Squashing it basically undermines free speech overall. Dislike Obama? Keep it SECRET within the confines of your home or go to jail! And don't forget to say hello to Quaddafi!

Len| 3.9.11 @ 3:54PM

Apples and oranges, you are the one who took my homeowner and changed the scenario. Did I really need to give every specific detail? No, unless one wants to play silly games of what if.

You also keep bastardizing private and public property. A restaurant is not public, a mall is not public, a bar is not public, the internet is not public, the radio is not public, churches are not public, etc., etc., and as no one actually spends time on public property other than to convey themselves from one place to another no one is actually being affected. I absolutely am against government attempting to infringe on free speech in any of these places. Again, holding placards is not free speech, there is no exchange, no consent. If these people were merely walking down the sidewalk then they without imposing themselves on others then would be free to do so

Sidewalks, roads and even parks are set aside for specific purposes and using them to protest private citizens is certainly not one. Free speech means I have the right to exchange ideas with others on my property or another's property where they have extended that right to me. To say that people can appropriate public property and use it as they see fit is an absurdity and puts us in a state of war where it is every man for himself.

Why do you think you have a right to force yourself on others? That is what you are arguing, that public property may be used in a private manner for anyone who wants to "express" a view. So anyone at anytime may use property not theirs to speak against others? Again these public places only mean that which as part of the public trust has been built for CONVEYANCE can now be used for any purpose that anyone wants.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 9:45AM

One thing you have to say about religious wackos is that they are often sincere and willing to go to their deaths to express their point of views. That's the whole point, really. Figusja, it wouldn't surprise me if many of these people were willing to be martyrs. And imagine if some misguided, but noble bystander did kill one of them. They'd wind up in court and sued and international attention would be brought on the case (which is precisely what happened due to this lawsuit.) This is classic civil disobedience in action!

That said, there's hope in that most leftists aren't that committed to their cause. They like to think that they're immune to the consequences of their soul and culture destructive philosophy.

Stephanie| 3.9.11 @ 11:00AM

Go to t heir website and you will see why they do this.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 12:13PM

Who? What website?

wodiej| 3.9.11 @ 7:08AM

Free speech doesn't mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 12:07PM

So if there is a fire, should I remain quiet and let people die?

Nunya| 3.9.11 @ 12:42PM

Polish, he was referring to the SCOTUS decision from the 30's (I believe) where the justices stated that the right to free speech does not allow one the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, when no such fire exists. It puts the persons in the theater in jeopardy.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 1:14PM

I know, Nunya, I know. I was being facetious but also making a point: Such a similar argument for restricting free speech is subject to abuse itself. You then had to clarify his position. That's where the threat to free speech, political or religious, resides. The justice who made that very argument (fire in the theater) realized soon after the time he had made a great mistake in using the wording.

What if there's not a fire, Nunya, but rather smoke due to someone leaving a smoke bomb in the room. Should the person go to jail then for saying there's a fire?

In any case, there was no such danger to public other than being offended which threatens ALL political speech. Many people would be offended by what's written here in this forum, should Alito hire a monitor to throw people in jail or not clearing everything with him first? Just to be safe?

RacerJim| 3.10.11 @ 12:56PM

Your "I know, Nunya, I know" belies your claim that Nunya had to clarify wodiej's position.

Tina B| 3.9.11 @ 7:10AM

I agree with Appleby, as disgusting as these phony Christians are. We know that laws against free expression in public will come back to bite us someday and already are with political correctness "rules".

I was sorry to hear the decision, and at heart agree with Alito. However, our culture has warped things so badly that in order to be free to express ourselves as conservatives or as Christians, we must allow the idiots their freedom of expression too.

Charles Dennison| 3.9.11 @ 7:39AM

So out of fear, we allow people to disrupt funerals? This is a sad state of affairs. When you fear your own government to the point of making concessions for the despicable, then you've already lost. Are we no longer adults who can distinguish between polite, true debate and this nasty name-calling at a funeral? I guess not. We have to "allow" this ridiculously rude behavior because we are afraid our own government will take away our free speech? Why do we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator? Are we not above this nonsense? Isn't time to elect grownups?

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 8:08PM

It's worse than that, Charles. It seems the SCOTUS has just legalized any loon disrupting your church service for any reason they please.

WRTolkas| 3.9.11 @ 7:48AM

I think the survivors of any newly departed members of the Westboro Baptist Church will discover that door swings both ways.

RacerJim| 3.10.11 @ 12:57PM

We can only hope so.

Brian Mc| 3.9.11 @ 8:12AM

What happened to Matt Snyder's Family's right to privacy? Oh, I'm sorry, that 'right' does not apply in this instance. Hypocrites, all but one.

JimH| 3.9.11 @ 8:27AM

I posted this last week in the blog. When viewed in the context of property rights these issues become easier to resolve:
This type of argument is only complicated when viewed through the lens of civil liberties as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These types of arguments and counter claims of whose rights take precedence get bogged down in all kinds of legalisms. In a strict libertarian interpretation this should be viewed purely as a matter of property rights. If the demonstrators are on private property, they can be there only as long as the owner permits. The libertarian argument against yelling FIRE in a theater is simply that doing so is a violation the theater owner’s property right. The person yelling fire is then either a trespasser or violating the implicit contract he agreed to when buying the ticket. Public property can be more complicated. But even here there are established rules regarding access and use based on the nature of the property. For example I am not allowed to play my boom box in a school or just walk onto any military base. From the pictures I’ve seen of these idiots’ demonstrations it is not clear to me that they are on public lands where demonstrations are legitimate. I would think that at the least they could be cited for disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 8:31AM

I see some comments already where people are making common mistakes.

1) Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of speech. Just as I have the right to swing my arm until it hits your face, so with speech. I have the right to speak if you listen, I have the right to communicate in forms where you give your consent, but after that I am infringing on your right to not be harassed. Protected speech means that government cannot stop us from communicating with each other, not that I have to listen to you, or have your "expression" forced on me.

2) The commons, or public property. These are there to enable us to move about to interact with each other, or do business, or some such, no one has a right to use such spaces to promote their agenda. A nuisance is a nuisance and as such laws may enacted to prevent such things.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 9:48AM

You have a point Len! Your example equates protests to someone punching someone out. So people holding up signs protesting Obama should be a federal crime. Maybe Quaddafi should come over here as an adviser...

Len, in the future, you will need to get a waver of permission from every other poster before writing any opinion lest we decide it's offensive.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 11:22AM

No, you come willingly here and I already have the permission from the host of the site.

Logic fail.

BTW,those protesters need permits to hold rallies. How do you not understand the difference between private and public property? Do you not know what a right is and what the foundation of a right is? Do I have a right even to paint nude women on my house which can be viewed by everyone?

It has apparently passed right by you why we have government, what is a right is, what speech is, and you make it up as in your opinion things should be.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 12:05PM

Do you? Please post the permission you have for all of us to see! You have permission because all of us do. That's the point of "free" speech!

In addition, check out: http://tinyurl.com/45bevns

The funeral protest was not held on the cemetary's, funeral director's, or family's private property (at least according to this account). Apparently, the father found out on the evening news and objected to the protesters having the freedom to publicly express such views. That makes it a classic freedom-of-speech case.

Regarding why we have government: Do you have OBAMA's permission? Please post that too otherwise, you must be an anarchist!

Len| 3.9.11 @ 1:38PM

I see there's no point in in bothering with one who is obtuse.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 1:58PM

The white flag of victory! Thanks so much!

JimH| 3.9.11 @ 1:05PM

In a free society you would have the right to paint her unless there was a deed restriction or something similar prohibiting it.

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 8:19PM

Libertarians tend to be too individualistic. Humanity is based on family life, and the State needs to respect that, and recognize that that "contract" pre-exists government (deed restrictions etc). It's a point of principle that modern Liberatrians tend to omit.

JimH| 3.10.11 @ 8:05AM

Don't confuse Libertarianism which is a political viewpoint, with Objectivism, which is a philosophy centered around the individual.

Frisbee| 3.10.11 @ 3:11PM

Thanks for the advice. Aren't many Libertarians in fact influenced by Objectivism?

Len| 3.9.11 @ 11:45AM

To add, this is one of those problems that I see as common to right and left, which is a collectivist view of property. As in, public means that anything can be done on it that we would do on private. Then conservatives want to be able to intrude into private property and extend their collective reach there and have a say as to what goes on there.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 12:33PM

Ironically, the left used that thinking to their advantage in getting public displays of religion outlawed via "separation of church and state" (which wasn't in the Constitution or even the Federalist Papers but rather taken out of context from a letter by Thomas Jefferson).

Thanks to this thinking, religious conservatives can't wear a crucifix at a public school or even conceivably a courthouse.

The devil must be laughing it up over this case: "I tricked conservatives into giving up their free speech! It was SO easy!"

Len| 3.9.11 @ 1:37PM

Ok, I will...

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

NEXT.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 2:36PM

You called me obtuse. That's disrespectful. That's ok, I'm a big boy. I'm not the one calling for Big Brother, though.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 2:46PM

Me calling for Big Brother?? Now that is really obtuse. Anyone who has read my comments in here for any period of time would certainly find that funny. Really funny considering how many times I've been called a libertine or anarchist.

Again you clearly don't understand from whence your rights emanate, and even what those rights really are.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 3:58PM

Obtuse is being disrespectful? No, it's an honest observation. Now granted anyone can say that of anyone, but it's clear that you can't distinguish between speech (people freely exchanging ideas with each other), and [removed]where my permission is not need for you to give me your views).

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 5:39PM

Ah, the "honesty" defense. It's ok to say offensive things provided you're "honest" or think you're right. Wouldn't that excuse the protesters if they believe they're sincere or right? In addition, if you argue that protests can only occur when permission occurs, then that will mean rather lame protests. "I'm protesting at this guy's house because he agrees with and invited me! That'll show him!"

I'm going to risk hitting a hornet's nest here and make an observation or argument that is sure to offend some: It's a good time to observe that although combat soldiers put their lives on the line, and often lose them, to protect our freedom they are still public servants and protectors of the constitution and that includes free speech. So yes, it may be offensive for someone to disrespect a person who has just died to protect their freedom to do so, but that's also the point.

Ron Baxter| 3.9.11 @ 8:52AM

As admirable as Justice Alito's arguements were, they can lead to a very slippery slope enabling the criminilization of all manner of speech. Canda is a prime example. A Christian pastor can no longer stand in the pulpit and proclaim God's word that homosexuality is a sin--he would be thrown in jail for "hate speech". If you don't think that is possible in America your head is in the sand. As reprehensible as this case was, the right decision was made.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 9:04AM

The difference is that pastor is on private property and the Westboro scum are on public.

jawin| 3.9.11 @ 10:50AM

Len, your comment only reinforces Mr. Baxter's point. How much more likely is one to be arrested for "hate speech" if that speech is made in public?

Len| 3.9.11 @ 11:29AM

No it does not. The point is that when one is private property one has the right to speak as one wishes, so what Canada has done is obscene and violates the reason for government to exist.

One the other hand when on public property, not in public[ such as at a restaurant (again private property)] laws preventing people from using such property in a privileged manner are okay. If you were to read the founding fathers you would see this was their understanding.

I'm frankly surprised that those I'm assuming are conservatives are for what I would say is more of a libertine understanding than what I as a libertarian understand as wrong due it to not being based on property or natural rights.

Occam's Tool| 3.9.11 @ 12:53PM

Personally, I like the idea of a million man march on the funeral of a Westboro Baptist family member----protesting loudly.

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 8:25PM

I think it's not only a matter of where the protesters are, but "when" they are. Public property protest? Okay. During a funeral? Hmmm.

Anthony| 3.9.11 @ 8:55AM

Mr.Murchison, you're a bit too hard on the conservative justices and have no cause to be "startled" at all by their consistant application of 1st Amendment. Apparantly Mr. Murchison, you are not familiar with the jurisprudence demonstrated by these justices during their tenure.
Yesterday, I opined that I was with Alito one this one, albeit, the Court's decision was the correct one. Alito, like many of us, probably including Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, is so disgusted by the complete lack of civility and human decency demonstrated by the demented members of Westboro, that he creatively found an exception in order to seperate himself from these disgusting people. I am sympathic with Alito and might have done the same, but it doesn't make it right.
It is up to us, the citizens of America, to admonish and punish these people for their vulgarity and vile behavior, not bureaucrats and judges. We must censure these people through our actions and admonitions. We must put Westboro and their ilk out of business, not government.
We fall into the trap of the leftists by insisting that government and its branches perform the dirty work that is our responsibility to clean up.

CharlieEcho| 3.9.11 @ 9:10AM

What you say is true. If I were to speak my mind at one of their rallies, I'm afraid I would be criminalized, if not incarcerated.

Jim in Arlington| 3.9.11 @ 5:57PM

I can't say I disagree with your response Anthony, however, I believe that the Justices and any other person in a "public office or seat" has an obligation to set a good example for the public. To just keep denying any kind of moral culpability the way they do will certainly lead to the collapse of our society-period!

Anthony| 3.9.11 @ 8:34PM

Jim, I respectfully disagree with you that this correct and intellectually consistant application of the 1st Amendment by the Court is a failure on their part to set a good example.
Quite the contrary, as I admonished Nunya above, to distort the 1st Amendment for these dispicable people would double down on the perverted actions of these cretins.
There is an old axiom in the law; hard cases make bad law. I do not believe this decision is bad law, but I can see where folks are so upset by the Westboro dementos, that they are willing to jetison their values just to put an end to them.
That my friend is making bad law, but it feels so good to have done so. That's the thinking of the left, that's the thinking that has gotten America in the terrible position we are in.
We are better than that. The Westboro fanatics are not going to disrespect our Constitution, as they have done to the mourners of these brave military soilders. I'd rather you kick the s*** out of them rather than allow them this additional victory.
Besides, you'd feel a lot better!!!!

jolizoom| 3.10.11 @ 4:55PM

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

The farther we fall from morality, the more decent people clamor for laws to bind us about and force us to behave civilly. The solution is not to legislate against such behavior, and so give a foothold to curtail legitimate speech as well as morally repugnant speech, but to shame them into complying with the rules of a civil society. How do we do this, though, when shame has no meaning any more?

Ken in Tyler| 3.9.11 @ 9:02AM

As a retired Marine, it is difficult for me to think or speak objectively on this subject. I try to imagine if it were my son's funeral (also a Marine) and cannot comprehend the behavior of these people. Once upon a time, our God-given Liberty pre-supposed a level of self-restraint and decency. We were never intended to have the "freedom" to do as we wished but rather the Liberty to do what is morally right. Perhaps I will live long enough to dance on the graves of some of these "justices" carrying a sign saying. "God hates fools who wear black robes."

CharlieEcho| 3.9.11 @ 9:11AM

I would be in your corner.

CharlieEcho| 3.9.11 @ 9:07AM

We can take the Snap, Crackle, Pop out of Rice Krispies (sic) but we can't put an end to the assaults these "religious" people make on a private ceremony? We are going in a wrong direction. Debate discussion and opinion in civil discourse are one thing. Harassment is another.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 9:50AM

Are abortion clinics private property? Should all protests against abortion near these places therefore be declared illegal including graphic signs that offend patients?

Bill| 3.9.11 @ 9:07AM

I can see the Westboro Church decision putting an end to those laws prohibiting the crime of harassment in circumstances where the perpetrator is guilty of using language that would provoke a violent response in a reasonable person. I guess that kind of harassment is about to become non-criminal.

Good point about "God hates dead soldiers" being equivalent to "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" under the Constitution as POTUS interprets it. I think the "marketplace of ideas" rationale for the First Amendment does not agree with that kind of equivalency.

Bill| 3.9.11 @ 9:09AM

Not "POTUS," but "SCOTUS." That's what I get for using that particular set of acronyms, which I don't like very much.

Steve A| 3.9.11 @ 9:45AM

Some facts of this case need to be laid out there before everyone shoots from the hip: #1: The protesters were mandated to be 1000 feet from the funeral & were not in view (other than the tops of signs) during the service. #2: The family was not even aware of the protest during the service.

Having stated those facts, let me say that I agree with the majority decision to let these scum bags parade around, however, I can promise you that if it were my child's funeral, & I saw it, I would identify the leader of this crew & he would be spitting teeth on the sidewalk. I would take my chances with a jury, criminal or civil, on the consequences.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 11:33AM

This was Ben Franklin's view on free speech.

Steve A| 3.9.11 @ 12:07PM

Hey, I got one right!

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 8:29PM

Thanks for some details Steve. I'm curious about the 1000 feet: did that include the procession, or just the actual burial site?

Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 8:39PM

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams, 1798

I think what we have here is a people who have become wholly immoral, and a SCOTUS trying to twist the Constitution in response.

Padoux| 3.9.11 @ 12:25PM

The point that all who agree with this ruling is that as I read it is that radicals like these fools can rant all they want, there is no prior restraint of speech, no law imposing criminal penalties for such speech. The Court seems to go further in saying that even civil suits for damages infringe on free speech. If indeed the plaintiffs were not harmed or damaged by the actions of the defendants, it is up to a jury or judge in a trial on the merits to so rule. Such civil suits should not be banned per se to defend free speech. A civil action for damages under tort law is not a law limiting free speech. If we harm some one in an accident due to our fault or intentional acts we are liable. So we should be liable if we do harm by our speech and a judge or jury after a trial so find. I would oppose a state or federal law forbidding certain speech, but would allow people to seek damages in civil court under the general tort law of each State.

Mark Shepler| 3.9.11 @ 10:21AM

This is a tough call and though I appreciate Mr. Murchinson's point of view it remains just that. His idea of good speech, worthy speech, decent speech, uplifting speech all of which I agree with so far as it goes. Of course it would be a man of the right who would reassert a common decency we all once recognized and I laud the intent but this is not the place for it.

But it is the left that has purposely distorted the first amendment to include a lamentable range of "free expression" while simultaneously chipping away at the kind of speech the first amendment was truly meant to protect- political speech. Sure, 200 years ago there was a clear delineation between the personal and private and political that all and sundry recognized and respected in word and deed but no more. Remember too the left these last 50 years have smothered our lives with the "personal is political" both symbolically and practically so that the tiniest issues relegated in the past to the states, localities or even the family are routinely a matter for Congress and the federal government. The merging of the two has allowed them to reach into the private realm of speech and interpersonal relations that we all intuitively sense as the weight of oppression. It's how they get by with speech codes on campuses, anti-hate laws and a whole host of measures meant to cow and silence their opposition, which is to say the great mass of their countrymen. It's why men and women can no longer have something like normal conversations in the workplace, for example. Their used to be an old joke about overreacting that one shouldn't "make a federal case out of it". One doesn't hear that anymore because EVERYTHING is a federal case so the joke has lost its meaning.

No, I'm afraid at this late date in the life of our Republic we must be very, very careful not to hand any more tools over to those would destroy our freedoms in the name of a decency they scorn but will turn against us in another place and time. There are other liberty safe, localized measures much easier to undue that can stop these Christian imposters. If it's legal to restrict them to 1,000 feet from a funeral, why not 2,000 or 5,000? I'm sure decent men like Mr. Murchinson on the plethora of state and local jurisdictions could come up with many creative ordinances to keep these spritual sadists from disturbing the peace and inflicting their pain.

somnolence| 3.9.11 @ 10:30AM

And if I was picked for the jury pool I'd tell them they would be wasting their time by selecting me since I would be sympathetic to your cause. You do have the right idea, find the ringleader or the biggest loudmouth, hopefully isolate them, then see how brave they are.

VBMax| 3.9.11 @ 10:33AM

I am suspicious of any SC ruling where the progressives agree with the conservatives. This ruling reminds me of the ACLU who seem only to support freedoms for the indecent.

Danny Haszard| 3.9.11 @ 10:33AM

Harassment by religious extremist

Jehovah's Witnesses instigated court decisions in 1942 which involved cursing a police officer calling him a fascist and to get in your face at the door steps,....this same JW 1942 court decision upheld infamous Phelps hate church in 2011
----
Danny Haszard,more on this group
http://www.dannyhaszard.com

chris haynes| 3.9.11 @ 10:36AM

This is easy. It had no place in federal court.

The problem is judges. They wont they read the law.

Our vaunted contiriution says "Congress shall pass no law..."
The law the protesters broke was local not an act of contress. So it wasnt unconstitutional.

But

Len| 3.9.11 @ 11:38AM

But? Let me take it from there...supposedly the 14th incorporates the Bill of Rights against the states, so it becomes a constitutional issue.

I say "supposedly", because I believe that to be a load of hooey.

Tenn Slim| 3.9.11 @ 10:49AM

The Protestors at these various funerals are symptomatic of our society.
Their falseness in protesting thier viewpoint, hurts, demeans and is obscencly incorrect.
Fortunately, the USMC folks, thier families are far above this type of protesting trash.
Semper FI
end

Cincinnatius| 3.9.11 @ 10:57AM

Justice Alito was RIGHT and wrong in my opinion. RIGHT in that he understands that there is a higher authority than even the 1st amendment, i.e., the golden rule given us by Jesus and wrong in the assumption that man can modify God's law, i.e., free speech. Cicero stated that "right or natural law" can not be abrogated by any government or king because it comes from a higher authority. Our founding fathers knew Cicero well and used the same philosophy in their statement of "inalienable" rights. They knew you could not trust men to properly mitigate these concepts because men are flawed and therefore couldn't be trusted to define limits. Sadly, the liberals have been very, very successful in their mission to denigrate the authority of God in our lives and have basically destroyed the concepts of common sense and common decency. If the court had ruled in favor of the Westboro group, then the left would have had their precious precedent needed to throw at any "speech" that was contrary to their ideas and we would have all suffered in the near future.

Wayne | 3.9.11 @ 11:18AM

I would much rather see the Court err in allowing too much freedom as opposed to too little freedom.

However as a person who was drafted, I believe that "free speech" will be taken away from any of us when convenient. Through no fault of my one, I lost my freedoms for two years.

Peppermint Tea| 3.9.11 @ 11:48AM

Free speech carries its own condemnation.
Look what it is doing for Jesse Jackson, Jr. in his rant for more "rights."

cicero| 3.9.11 @ 12:05PM

Having practiced law over the past 42 years, and attended law school for 3 years prior to that, I have had the opportunity to abserve, and at times, participate in the transformation of this country by our court system during very formative years. Our brethren of the robe have managed to squeeze all common sense from constitution, and the law. The constitution is not a suicide pact.

Padoux| 3.9.11 @ 12:08PM

"Free speech" has become license and its' continued abuse by fools such as this "Church" is the latest example. Alito is right by pointing out that these ranting radicals could disgorge their vile epithets elsewhere, but they chose a solemn funeral of a fallen soldier, not to debate, but ti intimidate, harass, and abase. This is protected? Is there NO limit on such actions? After all, as I understand it, the plaintiffs were seeking damages for harm done to them, not the government prohibiting speech. To say that such civil suits violate free speech takes NY Times V. Sullivan to the nth degree. People SHOULD be responsible in their speech and if they inflict damage they should pay. No right is absolute and the Sullivan case is the villainous holding that has spawned such cases. Good going Alito.

Renaissance Nerd| 3.9.11 @ 3:35PM

Thanks for pointing out what has been bugging me about this whole thing. I don't get where the 1st Amendment even comes into it. They weren't being charged with any crime. They weren't being censored by government power. I suppose the only real argument is that finding against the 'protesters' would open the floodgates of a bazillion civil suits over much less egregious 'fighting words.'

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.9.11 @ 12:13PM

Alito's vote was symbolic. Had he been the "swing" vote I wonder if he comes to the same decision.

Freedom of speech on public property, however vile, must be vigorously protected.

Grandpa| 3.9.11 @ 12:51PM

Whatever happened to the "fighting words" doctrine?

jawin| 3.9.11 @ 12:57PM

Through decades of progressivism and liberalism, especially in the mainline Christian denominations, America has devolved into such a state that licentiousness is now identified as freedom and liberty. Before our spiritual devolution, we would easily have known how to handle Westboro Church without bringing into question their free speech rights. A previous poster alluded to it: our fellow Christians would have rebuked them publicly for their actions, and would have done so with vigor; our local, state, and national political leaders would have condemned their presence at funerals; our law enforcement leaders would have decried the demonstrations as disturbances to the peace; our military leaders, too, would have publicly rejected the notion that there just isn't much we can do because of their right to free speech. Westboro Church would have been subjected to a continuous, public haranguing that would eventually and ultimately discourage the members from participating in their despicable "protests". Instead, we hear almost nothing.

Richard| 3.9.11 @ 12:57PM

Thank you PolishKinght, for the most prudent thing said in an AmSpec comment blog in a long time:

"The conservative justices saw the slippery slope and avoided it. The left is ready to implement "hate speech" laws in a heartbeat."

The difficulty with Justice Alito's argument is that with the wrong people in charge, it could be used as precedent to support proscription of speech on behalf of things he, and most in this comment string, would support. That is plenty of reason to applaud the eight other justices, even as we hold our noses against the outrages of the so-called Westboro "Baptist" "Church"

Richard

PolishKnight| 3.10.11 @ 11:18AM

You're welcome Richard.

Conservatives have been fighting Stalingrad issues for decades. Abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, etc. are nothing compared to the larger leftist victories that the right has largely conceded and just let the panzers roll over: destruction of the two parent family via feminism, institutionalized racism and sexism in the workplace and education, and an energy policy that first made us dependent upon oil as nuclear power was crippled and then restrictions upon drilling in the USA.

I'm sure there are others but those are some obvious examples. Even Reagan largely ignored these issues and GW Bush and McCain were almost indistinguishable from the left.

I know that this shocks the readers here, but flag burning, abortion, and funeral protesters aren't that big a deal in my life. I worry more about getting my car gassed. I know that sounds shallow, but so be it. That's what goes through Joe and Jane Six Pack's minds too and rightly so.

Imagine if the dark horse candidates, like the witch from Delaware had run on THOSE issues above. It's possible things would have ended differently.

Rick| 3.9.11 @ 1:15PM

Freedom isn't always pretty. Does the Westboro Baptist church exercise their freedom of speech or religion whenever they protest, yes. Is it in extremely poor taste, yes. If we ban them then who gets to make the decision from now on about who gets to speak or protest at what functions? Where does it stop? Will talk radio be the next? Some say it is in bad taste and is filled with hate. I believe we have to allow them the right to protest, it doesn't exempt us from showing up in force wherever they do to counter their hate, for we have that right also.

Len| 3.9.11 @ 1:55PM

Talk radio is not public property. Most public property is set aside for specific purposes, such as conveyance, and other than that people do actually spend time on public property.

To ban talk radio, would be to take control of private property.

Again, if people actually think that this is what free speech is, I suggest they read Locke or the founding fathers.

David| 3.9.11 @ 1:39PM

Governments at all levels have always enforced the TIME, PLACE, and MANNER of a person's or group's right to free speech.

For example, when the skinheads march, they are allowed to march with their signs and the most disgusting slogans. However, people on the opposite side of the skinheads are NOT allowed to interfere with or march in the same area (PLACE) or at the same TIME as the skinheads. They may hold a separate gathering at another time and place. Is that so hard to understand.

How would people like it if their daughter were to get married, and outside the church across the street, a bunch of men were standing outside with signs declaring that Karen is a slut, or that she slept with every guy in high school or college - that she is a tramp and had "x" number of abortions. You get the picture.

Should that be allowed in the name of free speech? Absolutely not. Those men are more than free to talk about Karen and say whatever they want about her at virtually every other time and in any other place, BUT not outside the church where her wedding is taking place.

Alito got it right, and I am very disappointed in Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia, and Kennedy too.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 1:48PM

This analogy breaks down since "Karen" is not a public figure and such slurs would be direct personal attacks and slander (or is that libel?)

I didn't like the claim of the father that the speech was deliberately hurtful. Was that established by testimony from the church's members and leader? In the case of the Flynt versus Falwell, Flynt clearly was directing his attacks at Falwell personally but the church was just exercising offensive speech in that case towards any service member around.

David| 3.9.11 @ 1:44PM

Polish Knight and Richard, I see no slippery slope leading to outlawing "hate speech". Right now, white folks can't legally go to a black church and start shouting racial slurs or disturbing their worship service. TIME and PLACE. It is already illegal to engage in that activity because of the TIME and PLACE.

As Alito pointed out, Westboro Baptist is more than welcome to spout their view at any other place and any other time, but not at the time and place of the funeral of dead soldiers.

I don't know why people and the other conservative justices have such a hard time making that distinction/.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 1:56PM

David, it's apples and oranges to compare a protest on private property (racial slurs yelled at a private church) to a public protest. It would be like me saying that people should not be allowed to say Obama is wrong on anything since that would be the same thing as busting into the white house and blaring your opinion on top of his desk.

You want the government to start controlling PUBLIC political speech based upon it's offensiveness? Great! Go over to Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter and ask them about Canada and the EU, they'll tell you all about it. There's even a "human rights charter" that outlines your right... to do what the Canadian government says (ok, more accurately, what the QUEEN says!)

Oldefarte| 3.9.11 @ 1:51PM

There is simply so rational correlation between the military [funerals] and homosexuality. The members of Hillsboro are obviously insanely stupid/moronic/deranged. If their free speech rights are/were to be exhibited/proclaimed, then the obvious target of their protests should have been possibly movie theatres and/or Hollywood production venues [which produce constantly homosexual contented material]. Fro the Hillsboro idiots to infringeupon/intimidate/harass/
demean, etc the privacy of military servicepersons' funerals in order to make their point/connection is nothing short of sleazy/distorted/retarded/dehumanizing/immoral/dastardly/asinine and they will BURN IN HADES FOR SAME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SD Rostra| 3.9.11 @ 1:52PM

A great perspective on this issue...
http://sdrostra.com/?p=13824

David| 3.9.11 @ 1:56PM

Polish Knight, nice try with the abortion analogy. It seems to make sense at first thought, but then the RIGHT to have an abortion is far from settled law because the issue was decided by nine men in robes and not by the legislature.

Holding graphic photos outside of abortion clinics to stop a women from doing what is wrong is protected speech.

It is a big leap to try to compare that to protesting at dead soldiers' funerals because AMERICA allows homosexuality and fights wars.

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 2:29PM

David, "unsettled law" is still the law and the 9 SC justices are part of the Constitutional system. Saying that you think it's "wrong" on that basis and that gives your support for certain offensive speech a free pass opens up a pretty big barn door!

I agree the thinking of the abortion protesters' requires a big leap, but that doesn't change the fact their speech is religious and political. Should the 9SC justices just consult you from now on since you're now the official arbiter of what's right and "wrong?"

Steve| 3.9.11 @ 2:18PM

Alito is dead wrong in this situation. If you're going to outlaw being tasteless then get prepared to not be able to say anything ever.

fwb| 3.9.11 @ 2:18PM

Leave it alone. The greatest Judge of all will deal with the people from Westboro as He will deal with all of us.

Their behavior is a temporary thing. His judgement will be eternal. Everyone has been warned to never expect justice on Earth.

David| 3.9.11 @ 2:36PM

I am not the arbiter of what is right and wrong. I simply consult the ONLY authority on such issues: The Word of God.

I still say the time and place is what has to be considered. And again, I don't see ANY connection among dead soldiers, homos, AMERICA, and the fact that America engages in violent conflicts at times.

That said, many of you on the other side of this have some pretty good arguments.

What about my wedding analogy? Should a group of men be able to denigrate the bride with nasty placards around the corner from the church?

Richard Baker| 3.9.11 @ 2:37PM

fwb:
Agreed. As the Westboro crazies forgot and sadly their apologists, as well, public morality and restraint were recognized as neccessary at the Founding. John Adams' quote regarding morality and the Constitution come to mind and with the '60s mentality, morality and the Constitution don't matter a whit if one chooses not to believe in it. This is a recipe for anarchy and vigilantism that will ultimately destroy society. Sad that we have people such as this perverting the Gospel of the Prince of Peace.

ChrisC| 3.9.11 @ 2:39PM

Mr. Murchison, I must respectfully disagree. All manner of speech must be protected. If the decision had gone the other way, the court would have confirmed that freedom of speech exists in degrees and the degree at which speech is no longer free is to be determined by a judge. There was also a religious element to this case since Phelps and his followers fancy themselves to be some kind of church. It doesn't matter if Phelps is wrong and hateful if hate is his religion, he has the right to express it short of causing harm. If he is stopped for causing emotional distress then the peaceful and loving expression of faith by others can be restricted as well, because someone somewhere can claim to be distressed by that too. It is unpleasant, but it was the right decision to avoid a dangerous legal precedent.

Kent D (Omaha)| 3.9.11 @ 3:02PM

A legality test oriented around the emotional responses of persons targeted (whether directly or indirectly) by a protest becomes very problematic. "Severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity" could presumably be inflicted in any number of ways.

Witness the response of pro-union protesters in Madison to their counterparts on the pro-Walker side. Must the pro-Walker crowd stand down and shut up because the pro-union crowd's feelings are hurt?

Or consider how such an emotional-response test might impact the right of pro-life protesters at an abortion clinic. One proven instance of "severe emotional injury" on the part of an abortion consumer, or an abortion provider, might become grounds for denying pro-life protesters their right to voice their message in the vicinity of a clinic.

Any truly equitable legal tests should be definable objectively, without recourse to people's potential emotional responses to a protest. In my opinion, objective measures seem to be especially crucial when a protest involves a highly controversial or emotionally inflammatory issue.

(None of my remarks should be construed as condoning the behavior of the Westboro gang, which I find to be morally reprehensible.)

gary siebel| 3.9.11 @ 5:11PM

Gotta disagree with you. They are not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Reprehensible, yes, but so too were the Repubs banging on the vote counters' windows in Florida to steal the election for Bush by preventing a legitimate recount. "Free speech?"

PolishKnight| 3.9.11 @ 6:01PM

"steal the election for Bush by preventing a legitimate recount"

Irony abounds. Even as Al Gore was claiming that "every vote" had to be counted (until he won), his lawyers were seeking to get military absentee ballots thrown out. Then he got on a private plane to go to a global warming conference about the evils of plane travel...

Leftists now define all close elections as "fair" only if their side wins...

Tina B| 3.9.11 @ 6:10PM

If the WBC got legal permission to gather, or rally,
at a park, however many feet from the funeral, during a military funeral, how could what they did be in question legally? If the city or county government gave these pharisees a permit, under these circumstances, something needs to be done about THAT. Seems to me that is the issue.

Who protested the city admin offices where this permission was granted? Who walked up and down in front of the admin building, with big signs that criticized such a terrible exhibition of manners, decency and good taste? Who dug deep to find out how to change this? How to stop the WBC from such uncharitable behavior?

Where are the other Baptist congregations? Who is protesting the WBC across the street from it on Sunday mornings? No one? All churches in the area, who really want to serve Our Lord, could give up one Sunday a year to blatantly protest such an evil group as they gather to "worship".

The community needs to give them a taste of their own medicine every Sunday for a year, peaceful protests with prayer, singing, and BIG POSTERS decrying the WBC poisonous preaching in Christ's name.

I don't want the Supreme Court to silence me when the day comes.

David| 3.9.11 @ 6:13PM

I am going back to TIME and PLACE. There is a reason people who oppose what the skinheads believe are PROHIBITED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT from demonstrating at the same time and in the same place as the skinheads. The risk of violent confrontation is too great.

As one poster here put it, if his son were killed, and Westboro demonstrated (excuse me, exercised their supposed right to free speech) at is funeral, he would identify the ringleader, and the guy would be picking up his teeth from the street.

No difference from the skinhead situation. TIME AND PLACE TIME AND PLACE has ALWAYS been recognized as a legitimate curtailment on an ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

Alito made the distinction, and the correct decision, in my opinion.

sestamibi| 3.9.11 @ 7:34PM

What everyone here seems to have overlooked is that this was a civil case concerning damages awarded to parties whose poor widdle feewings were hurt. That, and not the First Amendment, was the issue here, and from that perspective we have to consider how far the law is going to go to keep those poor widdle feewings unruffled. In our feminized society, it seems increasingly apparent that we must draw the line and state categorically that there is no such thing as a right not to be offended. Sorry, Mr. Muchison and Justice Alito. I admire both of you but you are dead wrong about this and the other eight justices are right.

On the other hand, I read recently at a similar event in Oklahoma that afterwards the Westboro gang returned to their cars to find all their tires punctured and no help to be found from local garages/tire dealers. Tsk, tsk. They should be more careful in avoiding road obstacles.

David| 3.9.11 @ 8:17PM

Seatamibi, I like it. But, there was damage. I like what the one poster said about picketing outside of the Westboro church with derogatory signs about what the so-called church believes.

Anthony| 3.9.11 @ 8:46PM

Seatamibi and David have figured it out. Don't ask the Court to do our work for us. You want to put an end to these dispicable trolls, picket their church with 1000 folks!!! Every damn Sunday until they close down.
And while I do not advocate violence of any kind, especially here, tires do have a way of going flat, it's just the nature of tires.

David| 3.9.11 @ 10:17PM

TIME AND PLACE, TIME AND PLACE.

Dee See| 3.9.11 @ 10:32PM

----YES, keep them another thousand yards back.
Of course.

NOW

---Even putting aside at least 5 decades of
deeply engineered, deeply funded cultural
destruction by Stanford Research, the Tavistock
Institute (BTW connected to this magazine?)
and, as ever, the ultra-rich TAX FREE 'charitable'
(i.e. EUGENICS driven) capstone foundations, NGO's and proxies -----------AND the matter of our cross-the-boards TREASON in ther name of authortarian Globalism and, again, EUGENICS
---------the diligent, literalist Westboro gang
really represent the American avante garde.

AND speaking of churches,
when is that FAR MORE pressing matter of
'Seperation of Church and State' issue viz a viz
Freemasonry (an exclusive, highly meddlesome
and, in its upper reaches openly Satanic cult)
---EVER going to be confronted?

WHEN???

David| 3.9.11 @ 11:41PM

Dee See, what about the Trilateral Commission and Club of Rome?

general summerall| 3.10.11 @ 3:23AM

Supposedly last summer the Supreme Court of Missouri, in a case against Phelps and gang, opined that Free Speech included not just the right to speak, but to use any methods neccessary to get your message out to your opponents. Free Speech includes getting loudly in the face of the opposition to make them know your message.Sounds something like the methods of
Abbie, Jerry, and the Yippies 40+years ago.

Jerry Dale Patterson| 3.10.11 @ 12:20PM

In reading your article I noted that you have joined in the Ananias Club in stating that the members of Wesboro demonstrated at the church where the funeral was being held. Of course, you were quoting the judeg when he lyingly said "The picketers could have picketed almost anywhere in America, said Alito. Why at the church where the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was being held?" Of course, if you read the transcript of the majority opinion, you would know that this also makes Alito a member of the Ananias Club.

While I am not suprised at the anti-Christian bigotry that comes out of the liberal left, I am surprised to see this on the American Spectator. It is as Solomon said, "Dead flies make the perfume stink, so does folly to a man who has a reputation for wisdom (free paraphrase).

But, in the haste to condemn Wesboro Baptist Church, you might ask yourself some questions.

Did Jesus say some people would go to hell in the most sacred senario of the Jewish people, c.f. Matthew 23? Moreover, did Jesus not say that Sodomites had their place in the lake of fire? (Note, the Biblical term for a sodomite is dog.)
Does not the Bible say that as a punishment for an ungodly people that gets rid of their unwanted babies God would kill their young men with the sword?

I would be hesitant in condemning someone who is saying what the Bible says. I do not want to be guilty of the sin of doing to the church what you say the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are doing

Mike| 3.10.11 @ 12:40PM

I thought Alito's dissent was spot on. Perhaps an underlying fear among the conservative justices was the idea of who gets to restrict this type of speech based on its content...a fear that the liberal elites will raise opposing thought to the same level of impermissible speech. Because we don't have a shared view of what truly is impermissible, we have no view. How sad.

phil| 3.10.11 @ 5:14PM

Justice Alito is wrong.(period)
There would be no children's bloodied bodies on posters. The graphic obscene and disgusting display of the lives lost in the battle to kill babies(abortion) would certainly be considered indecent. Yet what better display is there of the truth? In Alito's world "someone" would get to say what is good and bad. Either we stick with Christ's teachings or our Constitution. The Constitution clearly states their actions are permitted. When people make offensive speech with the desire to inflict pain or burn the flag that represents their very ability to be free, they are imbeciles. (I believe I am slandering imbeciles.)
They should be ignored. Westboro showed up at our church to protest the baptisms of children of gay parents. These people are ill. BUT I would die to protect this nation and keep it a nation where people can speak their minds.

Long Ben| 3.10.11 @ 7:57PM

The fine for punching those turkeys from the so called Westborough Baptist ought to be a dollar a pop .

James| 3.10.11 @ 8:41PM

There are 2 ways to view this:
1. The statements are intended against the deceased military. BAD
2. The statements are intended against the homosexual community and the US Government and all who serve that government. This is open for debate and the fact the "protesters" pick this method is allowed under the Constitution. DIFFICULT TO JUDGE FOR MANY.

Fortunately I don't have the answer or the ability to judge, I'm not smart enough. But I would like to see if we get the same answer from the Supreme Court if 5000 appear to picket a homosexualCongressman or Senator's Funeral. funeral.

David Burchison| 3.13.11 @ 12:36AM

Don't you get it? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Westboro, and the leftists are rejoicing, precisely *because* Westboro was protesting against US soldiers. If Westboro ever starts protesting outside abortion clinics (why aren't they, BTW?) , they'll be shut down instantly on the grounds of reproductive rights or a woman's right to privacy or whatever.

Jim Hlavac| 3.13.11 @ 5:19PM

I'm late to the debate, I hope the author reads this: thanks! The Westboro Baptist Church is calling for the elimination of 5% of the population -- us gay folks. Elimination and nothing less. They want us gone or dead. They don't care how.

For all those who worry that this happens at military funerals -- would it be any better if they came down to a gay bar?

They wouldn't get out alive.

But we gay folks dare not say a thing -- or we'll be accused of attacking churches.

Alito was right. This is not rational. And I'm the one with the target painted big on the back.

Christian Louboutin| 6.23.11 @ 6:09AM

Against his eight colleagues, Sam Alito stood in lonely, honorable dissent. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate," he wrote, "is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."

Creative Recreation| 8.11.11 @ 2:04AM

is good